T.C.
SAKARYA UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS
THE EFFECTS OF COLONIALISM AS AN INSTITUTIONAL LOGIC ON MODERN GHANAIAN
INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES
MASTER THESIS
Saedaa Mariam ABDULAI
Department: Business Administration
Field of Science: Management and Organization
Thesis Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Ali TAŞ
MAY-2019
PREFACE
This basis for this research originally stemmed from my passion for understanding the impact of colonialism on the Ghanaian institutional structure and its managerial systems.
Europeans came along with ideologies that has shaped the management style of Ghanaian institutions today. It is my passion not to only find out how these was carried out but also to understand the mechanisms that were employed by the Europeans to achieve their aim.
In truth, I could not have achieved my current level of success without a strong support group. I first give thanks to the Almighty Allah for His endless guidance through this work. I wish to thank my supervisor Doç. Dr. Ali TAŞ for his insightful comments, suggestions and encouragement.
I also wish to thank Dr. Ibrahim Mohammed Gunu of the University for Development Studies, Tamale Ghana for his selfless contributions to this research.
My gratitude also goes to all my friends for the positive energy they gave me throughout my stay here in Turkey.
And to my family especially my mum and dad I cannot thank you enough. Your continuous prayers and motivation have brought me this far. Thank you all for your unwavering support.
Saedaa Mariam ABDULAI
i
LIST OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBRIVATION ... iii
LIST OF TABLES ... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ... v
ÖZET...Vi ABSTRACT...Vii INTRODUCTION ... 1
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 3
1.1 The Concept of Institution and Institutional logic ... 3
1.1.1 What is an Institution? ... 3
1.1.2 What is Institutional Logic? ... 4
1.1.2.1 Social Identities and Resources ... 6
1.1.2.2 Value of institutional logics ... 8
1.1.2.3 Missing values ... 10
1.1.2.4 Appreciation of values using the concept Internalization verses externalization ... 12
1.1.3 The Dimensions of Institutional Logics ... 15
1.1.4 Multiple Logics and Organizational Change ... 17
1.1.4.1 Power and status ... 18
1.1.4.2 The three Mechanisms of institutional change ... 18
1.1.4.3 Logic compatibility and centrality ... 19
CHAPTER 2: COLONIALISM AS AN INSTITUTIONAL LOGIC ... 23
2.1 Introduction ... 23
2.2 Restructuring of Precolonial Institutions in Ghana ... 25
2.2.1 Restructuring of Pre-colonial Ghanaian Culture (Eurocentrism) ... 26
2.2.2 Restructuring of Socio-Political Systems ... 29
2.2.3 Restructuring of The Administrative System ... 30
2.2.4 Restructuring of The Market System ... 32
2.2.5 Restructuring of Financial Systems (Economic system) ... 33
2.2.6 Restructuring of The Educational system ... 36
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, DATA ANALYSIS ... 41
3.1 Introduction ... 41
3.2 Research Methods ... 41
ii
3.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation ... 42
3.3.1 Themes and Constructs in The Research Design ... 42
3.4 Sample of the study ... 43
3.5 Analysis and Findings ... 46
3.5.1 The Nature of Institutions in Ghana Under The Colonial Rule; ... 46
3.5.1.1 Culture, Socio-Political Systems and Administrative System ... 46
3.5.1.2 The Market System ... 48
3.5.1.3 Financial Systems and Institutions ... 49
3.5.1.4 Education/ Profession ... 50
3.5.2 The Nature of Institutions in The Post-Colonial Ghana (Modern Ghana) .... 52
3.5.2.1 Culture, Socio-Political Systems and Administrative System ... 52
3.5.2.2 The Market System ... 53
3.5.2.3 Financial Systems and Institutions ... 54
3.5.2.4 Education and Professionalism ... 55
3.5.3 Unmasking The Convergence Between The Colonial Institutional Structure and The Modern Institutional Structures in Ghana if There is any. ... 56
3.5.3.1 Culture and Socio-political Systems ... 56
3.5.3.2 Administrative System ... 57
3.5.3.3 The Market System ... 57
3.5.3.4 Financial Systems and Institutions ... 58
3.5.3.5 Education/ Professionalism ... 58
3.6 Summary of the Main Findings ... 58
3.6.1 What Was The Nature of The Institutions in Ghana Under The Colonial Rule? ... 59
3.6.2 What Has Been the Nature of Institutions in the Post-Colonial Ghana (Modern Ghana)? ... 60
3.6.3 Is There Any Convergence Between the Colonial Institutional Structure And The Modern Institutional Structures in Ghana? ... 62
3.7 Recommendations ... 63
3.8 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research... 64
CONCLUSION AND REMARKS ... 66
REFERENCES ... 69
ABOUT THE AUTHOR ... 78
iii
LIST OF ABBRIVATION
CEO : Chief Executive Officer
DVLA : Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency EBSCO : Elton B. Stephens Co
GDP : Gross Domestic Product GPS : Ghana Police Services GRA : Ghana Revenue Authority GSS : Ghana Statistical Services SAP : Structural Adjustment Program VRA : Volta River Authority
WTO : World Trade Organization
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Documentary Analysis ... 44
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Institutional Change: The interplay between institutional logics, social
identities and Resources ... 21
vi
Sakarya Üniversitesi, İşletme Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tez Özeti
Tezin Başlığı: Bir Kurumsal Mantık Olarak Sömürgeciliğin Modern Gana'daki Kurumsal Yapıları üzerindeki etkileri
Tezin Yazarı: Saedaa Mariam ABDULAI Danışman: Doç. Dr. Ali TAŞ Kabul Tarihi: 20/05/2019 Sayfa Sayısı: vii (ön kısım) + 77(tez) Anabilimdalı: İşletme Bilimdalı: Yönetim ve Organizasyon
1880’lerin Afrika’daki sömürgecilik yönetiminin doğuşu, 1960’larda Afrika ülkelerinin çoğunun bağımsızlığına yol açan bir sömürgecilik süreci başlattı. Bununla birlikte, sömürgeciliğin yara izi ve ayak izi Afrika toplumunun siyasal, ekonomik sosyal ve yönetim örgütlenmesinin sömürgecilik yapısını değiştirdi. Aslında, bir Afrika ülkesi olarak Gana bir istisna değildi ve kurumlarının örgütleri üzerinde sömürge etkisine sahipti. Aslında, Gana'da sömürgeciliğin dayatılmasıyla birlikte, örgütlerde alınan kararlar, yerel yönetim biçimlerinden daha batılılaşmış bir biçime geçişi yaratan yeni aktörler (Avrupa) paradigmasından etkilenen kristalleşen ve etkilenen boyutlarda bir değişikliğe neden oldu. Kolonileşmenin kurumsal mantığı, Ganalı kurumlarında, özellikle de yönetim kararlarında devam ediyor. Bu makale, kolonizasyonun kurumsal bir mantık olarak Gana'daki kurumların yönetim sistemleri üzerindeki etkilerini incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma, araştırma sürecinde toplanan ikincil verilere vurgu yaparak nitel yönteme dayanacaktır. Çalışma aynı zamanda, Ganalı kurumsal ve örgütsel tarihindeki zaman ve mekandaki kurumsal mantığın değişen dinamiğine dayanan sömürgecilik ile bugün Ganalı kurumlarının kurumsal yapısı arasında bir ilişki olduğunu varsaymaya çalışacaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Kurumsal mantık, sömürgecilik, Gana ,kurumsal yapıları, Yönetim
vii
Sakarya University Graduate School of Business Abstract of Master’s Thesis
Title of the Thesis: The Effects of Colonialism as an Institutional Logic on Modern Ghanaian Institutional Structures
Author: Saedaa Mariam ABDULAI Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Ali TAŞ
Date: 20/05/2019 Nu. of pages: vii (pre text) + 77(main body) Department: Business Administration Subfield: Management and Organisation
The birth of colonial rule from the 1880’s in Africa activated a process of colonization which ended in the 1960’s leading to the independence of most African countries.
However, the scar and the foot-print of colonialism altered the pre-colonial structure of political, economic social and management organization of the African society. In fact, Ghana as an African country was not an exception and had its share of colonial impact on the organizations of its institutions. Indeed, with the imposition of colonialism in Ghana, decisions made in organizations had a change of dimensions crystalized and influenced by the new actors (European) paradigm which has created a shift from the indigenous ways of management into a more westernized one. The institutional logic of colonization persists in Ghanaian institutions, especially, in its management decisions.
This paper seeks to examine the effects of colonization as an institutional logic on the management systems of institutions in Ghana. The study will rely on qualitative method with emphasis on secondary data collected in the process of the study. The study will also seek to assume that there is a relationship between colonialism and the institutional structure of Ghanaian institutions today based on the changing dynamic of institutional logic across time and space in Ghanaian institutional and organizational history.
Keywords: Institutional logics, colonialism, Ghana, institutional structures, management
1
INTRODUCTION
The inception of colonial rule from the 1880’s in Africa activated a process of colonization which ended in the 1960’s leading to the independence of most African countries. However, the scar and the foot-print of colonialism altered the pre colonial structure of political , economic , social and management of organizations in the African society. In fact , Ghana as an African country was not an exception. The country had its share of colonial impact on it’s institutions and organizational structure ( see; Bulhan, 2015). Indeed, with the imposition of colonialism in Ghana, decisions made in organizations had a change of dimensions crystalized and influenced by the new actor’s (European) paradigm which has created a shift from the indigenous ways of management into a more westernized one. The institutional logic of colonization persists in the Ghanaian society, especially, in its managerial activities. This thesis seeks to examine the effects of colonization as an institutional logic in institutions and organizations in Ghana.
The study relies on documentary analysis and the review of literature. The focus of this study is to explain that, there exists a correlation between colonialism and the organizational arrangement of Ghanaian institutions today. Based on this understanding this study is very important as the changing dynamics of institutional logic across time and space will require that such research and analysis should be done. This is a way of providing a brief view of the effects of colonization as an institutional logics in the Ghanaian institutional structure. The following research aim was addressed to examine the impact of colonial rule in the Ghanaian organizational arrangements.
Research Aim
The objective of this study is to examine the impact of colonization as an institutional logic and the institutional changes it brought in the Ghanaian institutional structures and managerial systems.
Research Questions
How has colonization as an institutional logic affected the Ghanaian institutional structures (1.Culture 2. Market systems, 3. Financial institutions, 4. State governance and Democracy, 5. Education)?
Sub-questions:
1. What was the nature of the institutions in Ghana under colonial era?
2
2. What has been the nature of institutions in post-colonial Ghana (Modern Ghana)?
3. Is there any convergence between the colonial institutional structure and modern institutional structures in Ghana?
This thesis will therefore discuss the competing institutional logics that have existed in Ghanaian institutions before, during and after colonization.
Significance of study
This research provided an opportunity to construct the nature of institutional structures during and after colonialism and to establish the convergence between the colonial institutional structure and the modern institutional structures in Ghana. The utilization of institutional logics provided an opportunity to interpret various economic activities during and after colonialism in Ghana. The findings in this research will help to understand the nature of Ghanaian institutional arrangements and that of Africa as a whole. It will also help to understand the role that colonial masters played in the restructuring of institutions in Ghana.
Research Method
This research used the qualitative approach in its analysis. It adopts documentary analysis (see Bryman, 2011; 2015) as a design for the study. Thematic and content analysis of data collected is employed and the findings made accordingly. The choice of this research method comes after the researcher upon looking at the nature of the research topic saw it as an appropriate approach since data will be collected from already existing texts and documents. This method employed is discussed thoroughly in chapter 3 below.
3
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 The Concept of Institution and Institutional logic
Institutions and the rules governing them have been studied over many decades to understand how people interpret and value them. The appreciation and valuation of the structure of institutions and the rules governing them involves the process of social interaction. In any social context that involves the interaction of people, there are emerging institutional guides and instructions that seeks to regulate the practices of the social actors. These rules and guidelines either constrain or enable the behavior of the actors involved. In any institutional order, changes to the practices may occur when actors come up with new and emerging logics. In the below sections in this chapter, the research presents a detailed review of the literatures on the concept of institutions and institutional logics.
1.1.1 What is an Institution?
Before one could digest the concept of institutional logic, there is the need to first understand what an institution is and what it is not. Many scholars have provided different definitions regarding the concept of an institution. There have been diverse ways of defining the concepts of institution and institutionalization. Thus, in institutional theory, one has to know from beginning that, there different approaches and understanding to this kind of conceptualization. Nevertheless, there are similarities in the various definitions when one considers the similarities(Scott, 1987:1).
Institutions may be defined as systems of recognized and prevalent social rules that aids in the structuring of social interactions. Language, money, law, systems of weights and measures, table manners, and firms (and other organizations) are thus all institutions (Hodgson 2006:2). Institutions are the constraints devised by individuals that seek to shape political, economic and daily social interaction. They are made up of informal constraints; sanctions, restrictions, customs, ethics, and behavioral codes of conduct), and formal rules; constitutions, regulations, property rights (North, 1991:1). Institutions can be said to be flexible. They change over time and in the creation of institutions there is a distribution of benefits and disadvantages in the sense that, individuals are either gain or lose in the process of making transformations to them. Through this process of modification, institutions change slowly as different interests and opinions compete to
4
get the most out of the rules though these changes are sometimes abrupt and dramatic (Leftwich 2006:1).
There is the need to consider how institutions shape social interactions and how they are established and rooted. Institutions are able to create stable expectations of the behavior of others due to the fact that, they enable ordered thought, expectation, and action by imposing form and consistency on human activities. Institutions are dependent on thoughts and activities of individuals, but this is not to say that its existence and sustainability is reducible to them (Hodgson 2006:2). Institutions when created act independently from the creators or actors involved. They continue to prevail even in the absence of its on setters as far as its sustainability is not tempered by emerging actors.
Institutions have a strong self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating characteristics considering their simultaneous ability to depend on the activities of individuals by way of constraining and molding them. This is to say that, they are perpetuated not because of the rules that they create, but basically because they are able to instill some values which individuals have come to accept and live by (Hodgson, 1988:7). This is what Selznick refers to as an adaptive process in his approach to institutionalization (Selznick, 1957:
17). According to Selznick, institutionalization instills "value" to an organizational structure which before, had only an influential efficacy however by instilling value, institutionalization helps promote stability: persistence of the structure over time(Scott, 1987:494).
Drawing on these definitions of institutions, the research moves on to define institutional logics. I present the following; what are institutional logics? What is the essence of institutional logic? why the research in the area of institutional logics over the years attracted the attention of a great deal of scholars?
1.1.2 What is Institutional Logic?
The concept of institutional logic emerged as part of the development of institutional theory since the 1970’s. However, it is noted that, institutional logics though being an attractive and interesting area of study, there have been difficulties in defining the concept and more so very hard to be applied in an analytical sphere. This study explores the opportunities of minimizing the difficulties associated with its application.
5
First introduced by Roger Friedland and Robert Alford in their paper “Bringing Society Back In” published in the New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, (Friedland &
Alford, 1991) argued that, each of the most important institutional orders of today’s Western society (capitalism, family, the bureaucratic state, democracy, and Christianity) has a central logic which is identified as a “set of material practices and symbolic constructions” that constitute each institutional order’s “organizing principles” and that is “available to organizations and individuals to elaborate” (Friedland & Alford, 1991:232). This logic constrains both the means and ends of individual behavior and are constitutive of individuals, organizations, and society. The definition was further elaborated by Thornton and Ocasio (2008) where they emphasized that logics are the
“socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, including assumptions, values, and beliefs, by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to daily activity, organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences” (Thornton et al., 2012, Thornton and Ocasio (2008:103). Thornton and Ocasio (2008) in their review of the literature identified some precursors (notably Fligstein, 1990; Jackall, 1988). They substantially built on the concept, suggesting some theoretical independence of a set of logics which gives a ground for social influence on actions of actors in a given environment. However, “the institutional logic approach incorporates a broad meta-theory on how institutions, through their underlying logics of action, shape heterogeneity, stability, and change in individuals and organizations”
(Thornton & Ocasio 2008: 103, Lammers, 2011:159). Thornton mentioned in his early writings that institutional logics shapes the behavior and thinking of individuals and that, the individual and organization also influences the changes and modifications made in institutional logics (Thornton, 2004).
The interests, values and assumptions of individuals and organizations are rooted within the existing institutional logics to understand organizational realities (Berni et al., 2017:131). According to this perspectives, institutional logics enable and justify the execution of organizational forms, managerial practices and behavior (Berni et al., 2017:132). The way actors make sense of and act accordingly is contingent on the prevailing institutional logics guiding them (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014: 774).
Simply put, social action in any institutional order is guided by an institutional logic (Misangyi et al., 2008:754, Friedland & Alford, 1991).We however, cannot go without mentioning that not all logics are institutional. What makes a logic institutional is the
6
legitimacy of the action taken and the fact that sanctions are attached to learn and repair institutional logic (Glückler, 2015).
Friedland and Alford (1991) further developed the concept of institutional logics in an attempt to explore the interrelationships between individuals, organizations, and society.
They view institutions as a whole body of collated (supraorganizational) patterns of activity rooted in material practices and symbolic systems which gives meaning and significance to the actions and experiences of individuals. Thus, execution of it’s power transcends the individual member. They rejected the theories of individualism, rationality or rational choice with the claim that, each institutional order has a central logic that guides its organizing principles and provides its social actors a sense of identity. These practices and symbols are available to individuals, groups, and organizations to further elaborate, manipulate, and use it to serve their interest (Thornton et al., 2008:101, Friedland and Alford, 1991: 232, 248, 251–252).
The external aspect, objectivity and collectivity of institutional logics is what makes them institutional: they are perceived as social facts in a Durkheim’ian way (Durkheim, 1982), as collective representations of reality (Haveman, H. A. 2016:3).
In an effort to achieve this collectivity, (Haveman, H. A. 2016:3) individuals, groups, and entire organizations use institutional logics to order their activities in time and space. The actors ensure the creation, maintenance, evaluation and adjusting of both the formal structures (efficiency in carrying out departmental duties) and informal cultures (obedience to the norms, values and expectation of behavior) in the organization with the aim of sustaining their common interests. This is why DiMaggio, 1988 referred to institutional entrepreneurs’ act as agents that create new and modify old institutions because they have access to resources that support their self-centeredness. In the following I present a review and analysis of social identities and resources.
1.1.2.1 Social Identities and Resources
According to Sewell, 1992 institutional logics is acted out or built on the accessibility to resources. These resources mainly assumed to be economic, can also come in different forms like human capital when we consider education or expertise; symbolic influence with the capacity to define and legitimize institutional rules and values; or social status that enable access to and positioning in important networks. Resources play a crucial role
7
in defining social identities and by so determines the positional identities (be it formally defined, emergent or informal) of the actors within any given institutional order (Oakes et al., 1998).
Social identities, position individuals in a social space by allocating to them legitimate power/ dependency relations to other social categories of actors. In the environment that they own this legitimacy, they are associated with a variety of social expectations and appropriateness in actions. When there is a change in the logics that guides them, they automatically change accordingly. Due to the differences in the institutional logics which require different social identities, we can expect\\ struggles, protests and competing views over legitimacy of a new logic that is to take place. (Meyer et, al. 2006:1001). In other words, when there is a replacement of the dominant institutional logic by another emergent and powerful logic, the power that is instilled in an individual could be taken.
It is apparent that the individuals or actors who get the win depend on the strength of their resources.
This is to say that, where institutional logic is not supported by and embedded in resources its sustainability and reproduction becomes questionable. In short, resources influences institutional logics (Sewell, 1992, Bourdieu, 1985). Resources enable or constraint the continuity of an institutional logic in an institutional field. Where resources are not available a prevailing logic is likely to be replaced by another logic backed by actors with greater resources (Misangyi et al, 2008:755).
With the accessibility to resources that support their self-interests, institutional entrepreneurs/ actors are able to create new and modify old institutions (DiMaggio, 1988).
With a backing from powerful actors, the status quo i.e existing institutional logics could be maintained since they “provide the formal and informal rules of action, interaction, and interpretation that guide and constrain decision makers” (Thornton and Ocasio 1999).
By virtue of the different social location they occupy in the interinstitutional system institutional entrepreneurs engage in the manipulation of activities and thus taking advantage of the opportunities it presents for institutional change. They do this with the influence of the resources available to them. (Thornton, 2004). In short, there is corruption in the institutional order where entrepreneurs are known for perceiving and exploiting contradictions in institutional logics to further their self-interest.
8
1.1.2.2
Value of institutional logicsThe concept of Value has over the years attracted the attention of sociological scholars.
An example which has repeatedly been used in institutional analysis is that of Talcott Parsons. With a view derived from Max Weber and the American anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn, Parsons shared the view that, a value is not just something that represents itself as a constituent of a whole body or a property of an entity but rather it is a “pattern.”
In other words it is something ‘nested’ into a single form. At the same time, value forms part of the pattern of culture. The mechanisms in which this takes place involves the phenomena of institutionalization and internalization in the personality of the individual.
Values are thus considered as “patterns” at the cultural level which can become determinants-of course through the process of institutionalization, but never stand independently in an empirical social process (Parsons, 1968:136).
In understanding the value of institutional logics, many scholars have employed different methods in its conceptualization. Roger Friedland (2017) in his understanding of the value of institutional logics reacted to a certain cognitive and isomorphism perspective of neo institutionalism in an attempt to redefine institutions and emphasize the importance of value in the institutional order. He stated that, the exclusion of value in an institutional order will only leave it with impoverished energetics, socially crippled and with manifold questions of How? Why? and Who should do What. Simply put, he refers to a chaos that will result in the extrusion of values in an institution. Friedland argues that, without value, we cannot approach the call that instates our investments and brings us to life. And without value it will be difficult to understand institution/instituting, institutionalization, and de-institutionalization. Taking excerpts from the works of Philip Selznick and relying on his passion for values in the institutional theory we look at how he focused on the essence of value in his definition of institutionalization. Drawing from Michels and Barnard, Selznick created his somewhat distinctive model of institutional theory (Scott, 1987: 51-68). He dwelled on the formation of an organizational structure as an adaptive mechanism shaped by the behavior of actors as well as the influences and constraints of the surrounding environments. Institutionalization he argued, refers to this adaptive procedure (Selznick, 1957: 17). Institutionalization instills "value" to an organizational structure which before had only instrumental utility and by instilling value,
9
institutionalization helps promote stability i.e. persistence of the structure over time (Scott, 1987:494).
It is clear that, Selznick work has some resemblance to that of Friedland as they all emphasize the point that, value is an integral part of an institution. According to Friedland (2017), the category of values is inadequate to the task if we think of it as an attribute of objects and/or subjects. He argues that to conceptualize an institutional logic, we must re- think the fact-value divide which has been integral in the formation of social theory. He further explains that, in institutional life, value is not something added, like an attachment of a signage to social objects. Values he mentioned, cannot be separated from what social objects are, their usability, their impacts and operability. He rejects the marginalization of values of any kind.
Value is essential to institutional logics. It is a product of ongoing practices, an essential element of its constitutive body (ontology), a source of legitimacy that shapes the boundaries of what is deemed appropriate and not, a basis of individual identification, a basis that enables individual and organizations to socially construct and reconstruct logics in ways that reflect their interests (agency) and that which allows the execution of power.
The Thornton approach to value, underscores legitimacy as an integral part of institutionalization. Drawing on Friedland and Selznick’s concept of value, they identified the source of legitimacy in all their six institutional orders (Thus the
“unconditional loyalty” in the Family, “spirituality or sacredness” in society found in religion, “the idea of democracy” in the state, “share price system” in the market,
“professionalism” in professions, and the “competitive ability” of firm in the corporation (Friedland, 2012:585). Only when individuals and organizations conform to and act accordingly to this source of legitimacy that the ultimate ends can be achieved.
Institutional value enables the enforcement of normatively accepted practices on account of the power that it grants.
Friedlands’ criticism on the extrusion of value in the framework of institutional logics by Thornton and his colleagues is also a topic of interest in this context. He argues that, Value is missing in their framework. According to him, even though they recognize that value was an elementary part of the initial formulation of institutional logic in their systematic account of the institutional logical approach, which both develops a theory of
10
how institutions emerge and change, and how individuals influences these changes, they failed to highlight the category of values( Thornton et. al, 2012:44).
In an attempt to argue out the value of institutional logics, Friedland borrowed the concept of Neo-institutionalism. Neo-institutionalism emphasized on cultural cognitivism by which social categorization was constituted and social appropriateness prevailed in the ordering of practice, which do not depend on internalized normative commitments and reducing it to a particular sphere (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991:26).
1.1.2.3 Missing values
This section explains values as part of institutional logic which Thornton and his colleagues argued that, value is not an integral part of institutions logics. The section is intended to argue that, institutionalization of value is an important activity in institutional logics.
There have been many arguments made on the inclusion of value as an essential component of any institutional logic. Many have argued that value as a category of institutionalization is not an instrumental element in understanding the concept of institutional logics. Despite the fact that many scholars like Karl Marx have underscored the importance of value in his concept of capitalism or Max Weber’s emphasis on value in his conceptualization of capitalism and actions of individuals historical individuals and the meanings they read into actions based on their valuations or the value they attach to them. Again, we cannot proceed without acknowledging the works of Philip Selznick where value is made fundamental in his institutional analysis of organization (Thornton et.al, 2012:56).
Unlike Selznick’s acknowledgement of value, scholars like Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury in their institutional logic approach disregard value as a focal element in their analysis. They however acknowledged value as an elemental part of their initial formulation of institutional logics. According to them, institutional logics is built on the sources of legitimacy, authority and identity and the bases of norms, attention, and strategy (Thornton et.al, 2012:56). They believe that, these root metaphors are the principal elements that shape individual actions and the choices they make. The concept of value is not emphasized in their framework. They have instead, considered value as
11
the source of legitimacy or one as an organizational identity (Thornton et. al, 2012:66,136).
Friedland (2012:591) contends that, Thornton and his colleagues regarded “vocabularies of practice” (that categorical systems that focus attention, ensure meaningfulness, allows interactive measures and gives identification) which is referred to as the “rules of the game”, as the underlining operator of their framework.
According to Friedland, central mechanism in the micro-level is a “bounded intentionality” by which individuals are culturally embedded in a social group to which they identify, and which do not only enables them a sense of belongingness but allocates attention to schemas for perceiving, interpreting, evaluating and responding to environmental situations. This also conditions their goals and present to them a distinctive set of practices and conventions that creates an avenue for deciding at both the micro and macro level which problems should be given attention and which solutions are appropriate and are matched up with their related situations accordingly (Friedland, 2012:591). Individuals or social actors of a group are provided with an outline of dos and don’ts designed to guide their activities.
Institutional logics addresses issues and tries to find the appropriate solutions to them through mechanisms, including deciding on whether they are appropriate and legitimate, ensuring that individuals are accountable for their actions, looks out for ways to put things right by seeking available alternatives and paying heed to eternal and organizational determinants of change. The adaptation of each aspect of institutional logics depends on the use of accessible knowledge structures to deal with aspects of the situation and the environment. Individuals may rely on other available institutional logics to activate knowledge and information for further information processing if accessible schemas or maps are regarded useless and irrelevant (Friedland, 2012:592).
In order to discredit the legitimacy of a dominant institutional logic, institutional actors may turn to the use of rhetorical strategies or alternative vocabularies of practices to interpret and manipulate these prevailing symbols and practices. Institutional entrepreneurs try to point out irregularities by associating them with broader cultural analogies (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008:144-115).
12
When the legitimacy of an institutional logic is questioned, room is created for an institutional change to take place. In this instance, situations to which the dominant structures if deemed inapplicable opens a chance for strategic agency leading the actors to mobilize new groups with new logics. This is where the actors make alternative rational decisions. Application of prevailing structures in a situation of multiplicity is only contingent or dependent on interpretation and the use of power (Friedland, 2012:592).
In the application of justice in a social environment, Aristotle made use of the contingent factor. According to the philosopher, the application of rules in governing the actions of individual towards the virtue of justice can only be successful with the help of supplementary virtue, that of practical intelligence (Friedland, 2012:592), with logical connectives that will serve as a convincing fact in order to ensure the practice of virtue to a particular individual or situation. This can take the form of rhetoric as already mentioned above. In institutional logics, the internalization of value becomes a crucial activity because, it is only when there is a desire to pursue a particular good or when the value of a logic is identified that, the reproduction of that particular logic can be effected perpetually. In other words, the sustainability of logic depends on identifying the value it comprises (Friedland, 2012:592).
1.1.2.4 Appreciation of values using the concept Internalization verses externalization
Thornton and his colleagues avoid the use of value with the intention of not allowing Talcott Parsons Normative consensualism to influence their ideology (Thornton et.al, 2012:32, 40, 42, 44, 54). In contrast to Talcott Parsons idea on Values of things, Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury consider institutional logics not only as a way to multiply institutional rationalities beyond a certain sphere but to have an external culture that is manifested in material practices and cultural “vocabularies of practice” which will be consistent across time and be independent of internalized values .This will ensure a strategic agency and transformation through the multiplicity of logics ( Thornton et. al, 2012:42-44, 59-60). They posit that, multiplicity and strategic agency is enabled because culture is not internalized. Culture according to them is an exterior institutional practice and symbol that not only guide the individual’s daily actions but also aid in change.
Institutionalization is therefore difficult to achieve without the process of internalization (Zittoun & Gillespie, 2015:2).
13
Internalization involves the reconstruction of an external activity (cultural practices) internally. This is accompanied by development of practical intelligence, voluntary attention and memory. Individuals on a societal level will need to first go through the process of interactions with situations and the environment and then later building and accepting the schemas that is presented to them in oneself. This is to say that, they recognize the value of whatever structures they need to conform and act upon. Making culture an internal component involves the reconstruction of psychological activity on the basis of sign operations. The internalization of socially rooted and historically developed activities through reasoning is what distinguishes a human from an animal. The human psychology will need to go through the process of internalization in order to accept the material practices it is presented with. In this account, operations, social interactions and culture are internalized. It has however remained unclear how these originally external phenomena are actually internalized (Zittoun & Gillespie, 2015:2).
Internalization and externalization are both complementary activities. Meanings that are held out for the individual by social structures and schemas are brought over into the individuals thinking through the process of internalization. This process is bi-directional in the sense that, there is an input-output situation. Taking in information and producing the expected. What originally had collective-cultural meaning in the inter-personal (between people) domain under guidance of socially shared interpretations of reality becomes intra-personal (becomes personal). Thus, institutional logics need to go through that process of internalization of cultural practices to be accepted by the individual (Zittoun & Gillespie, 2015:4).
The recent development that contributes to the internalization debate is the Position Exchange Theory and Symbolic resources. Position of Exchange addresses how the individual internalizes people’s ideas or logics presented to them and then builds up their personal thoughts. The theory identifies the numerous differentiated social positions that individuals take at both the macro and micro levels. It emphasizes on the fact that, people day in and day out move between social positions. Children becoming parents, employees employers and students teachers. There can be a reverse in these movements.
It is however, interesting to know that, these exchanges of social position presents a mechanism for pilling up of experiences within the individual such that, they create the potential for thinking in a rational way to make a choice. For example, the goals set by a
14
child in aiming of becoming a parent one day might contradict their view of parenting while being a parent. Research has shown how tensions arise due to the layering up of different know-hows, goals and orientations as one moves between social positions.
Equally, research has shown the clash of perspectives among doctors when they become patients. The doctor puts themselves in the shoes of patients. The key point of position exchange is that, the doctor by doing this internalizes the perspective of patients most directly by being a patient.
Another contribution to support the concept of internalization is symbolic resources;
experiences guided by cultural artifacts. Symbolic resources refer to artifacts that are in a form of complex symbols and gives meanings to expressions. Books, movies or songs, used in relation to something that goes beyond the meaning intended for them. When used as symbolic resources, they make it easy for understanding and interpretation of emerging events and thoughts (Zittoun, 2006: 61). This concept exposes the various forms of sociocultural guidance, and emphasizes how it is possible for new experiences to emerge based on what is internalized. This clearly refutes the claim by Thornton and colleagues that, internalization does not enable variation. In symbolic resources, new experiences are created and people are perceived as, first, being moved within these guided experiences, and second, moving between such experiences. In both cases, that is Position Exchange
&symbolic resources, there is an external representation, a situation and a cultural artefact that serves as a guide to human experience. In both instances, nothing actually becomes internalized, rather, there is an external world that produces an experience. Internalization thus becomes an ‘abstract’ activity. The experience is called ‘internal’ merely because it is not accessible to observers, it is non-pictorial; that which cannot be captured from observers’ perspective. As individuals move through situations and culturally guided experiences, what piles up within the individual’s cognitive part is not culture per se, but rather experiences patterned by culture. The act of conceiving the movement in the mind is enabled by these guided experiences acquired. New ideas thus emerge through strategic agency or subjectivity enriching the social and cultural setting. It is this integral process that is focused on to expound the concept of internalization; internalization is not just a simplistic importation of that which was external, but, a complex layering up of experiences and responses occasioned by diverse, and potentially even contradictory, social settings and cultural guidance structures (Zittoun & Gillespie, 2015:5-8). The research therefore argues that in institutional logics, internalization of culture as an
15
external element should not only be considered on a lightly but should be perceived as complexities that is involved in getting the individual to making subjective choices based on the experiences gathered. This way, the individual understands what is meaningful and what is not. Value should therefore be an integral part of institutional logics in understanding the behavior of social actors in a situation.
1.1.3 The Dimensions of Institutional Logics
Within any given institutional order, it is imperative to recognize the critical role of institutional logics in aiding in the understanding of the material-resource environment and it’s value system. Institutional logics are ‘sets of ‘‘material’’ practices and symbolic constructions which constitute a field’s organizing principles and which are available to organizations and individuals to elaborate’ (Friedland and Alford, 1991: 248). They ensure that formal and informal rules of action, interaction, and interpretation guide and constrain decision makers in accomplishing the organization’s tasks and in obtaining social status, credits, penalties and rewards in the process’ (Ocasio, 1997).
They are the ‘cognitive maps’ or the belief systems that are carried out by individuals located in the institutional field to make meaning out of their actions (Scott et al., 2000:
20). In other words, in any given institutional order or field, there is an infusion of institutional logic that embody the organizing principles that underpins how field participants carry out their work. The dimensions of systems of logic vary according to
‘content, penetration, linkage, and exclusiveness’. There is therefore the need to examine the content of institutional logics, by investigating the ‘specific belief systems as they are understood and interpreted by field members’ (Scott, 2001: 139). By examining their content, for example distinctive categories, beliefs, and motives created by a particular institutional logic, it becomes easy to understand and explain the nature and types of social relations that exist between institutions and individuals (Friedland and Alford, 1991: 252).
To understand how institutional logic of a particular institutional order works, one would have to look at it from different dimensions by considering how different individuals in their respective environments understand and adhere to their beliefs and practices. Many scholars have built on the dimensions of institutional logics in different ways. For example, Friedland and Alford 1991 understands institutional logic as practices, that exists overtime and sustained by the cultural beliefs and politics. Whiles Jackall stresses
16
on the normative dimensions of institutions and the intra-institutional conflicts of modern-day organizations, Friedland and Alford on the other hand views symbolic resources and the inter-institutional inconsistences of institutions. They pointed out the conflicts that exists between the market and the family and that of the professions and the corporation. They underscored the symbolic and cognitive dimensions of institutions and institutional logics. But it is argued that, without the incorporation of a normative dimension, explaining the concept of an institution and institutional logic in the symbolic and cognitive approach will seem incomplete because, the concept of institutional logic stresses on the social norms that guides the behavior of actors in an institutional order.
This explains the fact that behavior is driven not by a logic of consequences but by a logic of appropriateness. That is, what constitutes what is right and what is wrong is made clear and this is only achieved when the norms are clearly laid out (March and Olsen, 1989) Thus the need for a normative dimension. In this regard, Thornton and his colleagues in an attempt to explain how the behaviors of the actors in institutional logic can be understood combines these three i.e the structural, normative and symbolic as essential and complementary “elements”. Thornton and Ocasio’s (1999) approach to institutional logics combines the structural (coercive), normative, and symbolic (cognitive) as three necessary and complementary aspects of institutions and not three independent entities as suggested by alternative approaches (Thornton & Occasio, 2008:106).
Another dimension of institutional logic which is worth arguing for is the morality dimension of logic not clearly stated by Thornton and his friends. This dimension of logic is less discussed but ironically has been a crucial point in the origin of institutional logics (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991). Morality endorses legitimacy. The legitimacy of practices and actions of individuals are assessed based on their adherence to the elements (normative, regulative, and socio-cognitive), and not whether they are deemed “right” or
“wrong” in a moral sense. When the institutional status-quo is questioned, then there is an indication of something gone wrong and needs to be modified or changed. When the legitimacy of actions are evaluated, institutional change occurs as there is a shift in the logic. Actions of field level actors are then deemed acceptable or not (Suddaby &
Greenwood, 2005:35). Legitimacy processes explains and allows for institutionalization and stability and also explains why there is change and deinstitutionalization in organizations and in organizational fields (Stryker 2000:180). Where there is morality as a guiding principle, corruption cannot take place.
17
1.1.4 Multiple Logics and Organizational Change
Seven main ideal type institutional orders that influence actors in western societies in very particular ways have been listed as the family, religion, the community, professions, the state, the market and corporation (Friedland and Alford, 1991, Thornton and Ocasio, 1999, Thornton et al., 2012). Individually, each of these institutional sectors has distinct logic that guides and regulates their actions within that particular setting they belong (Greenwood et al., 2010). In instances where these institutional logics co-exist, conflicts may arise leading to inconsistences and tension in the environment. However, there are instances where they may be complementary to each other.
Institutional factors determines what actors of a particular setting pursues. Different actors of varying institutional orders have varying interests that pushe them to act in a certain way. Politicians for instance, seek votes and firms seek profits and so on (Scott, 1987:508). When there is consistency and a reinforcing prescription for actions and beliefs we say logics are compatible. On the other hand, when there is inconsistency and contradictions in their prescriptions, logics is presumed incompatible.
Studies provides additional insight on how logics shape the individual and organizational actions and the ways by which they affect them. Thornton et.al, (2008:111-113) identified collective identity and identification, political struggles, and categorization as mechanisms that shape individual and organizational behavior. They focused on collective identities and identification that prevails in a given institutional order. A collective identity is the symbolic, normative and attachments that a group of people within a specified social setting develop and share a common interest.
Individuals are likely to cooperate well within the group they belief to have an identity with or the group to which they have a sense of belonging. The members of this group seek to protect the interest of the group and shields it of any contending identities that pose threat to their shared values. Individuals of social movements, professions and occupations are examples of such groups with a collective identity. Collective identities emerge in any form of institutional order and organizational setting. Distinct institutional logics emerge as these collective identities within the social group become institutionalized and are guided by these logics. Lounsbury’s (2002) study of the collective identities in the field of finance illustrates how shifts in institutional logics opened doors for actors to bring new ideas into the field.
18 1.1.4.1 Power and status
In as much as social actors are influenced by the power and status allocated to them they are also shaped by prevailing logics. Institutional logics shape and create the rules and therefore actors are guided by these rules. When there is the competition for power and status in organizations new logics emerge (Friedland, 2012:591).
Regarding this scenario, Thornton and Ocassio (1999) explains the emergence of editorial logic and a market logic as competition for power by actors evolved. Lounsbury (2002) focused on the prevailing logics in the field of finance that were generated in quest for competition and reputation. He emphasized that most of the actors shifted from regulatory logic to market logic upon gaining experience in the field and relying on new financial theories to maximize profits and gains.
New categories emerge as these institutional logics change and consequently change the meanings of already existing categories. A practical study that demonstrates this mechanism is the study of how modifications in the French cuisine resulted in self- categorization by actors in the industry and a transformation in the organizational field (Thornton et. al, 2008:113). In the following the factors that cause changes in a prevailing institutional logic is discussed.
1.1.4.2 The three Mechanisms of institutional change
Studies have been done to determine the factors that push change in field logic. It has been revealed that, three factors that trigger institutional change include institutional entrepreneurs, structural overlaps like mergers and acquisitions and the third being temporal and sequential events (Thornton et. al, 2008:115-116).
First, institutional entrepreneurs use the resources available to them to exploit the inconsistences in logics and further their self-interests. Actors are constrained but are also enabled by institutions which gives them control and power to make and modify changes that suits their interest. Institutional entrepreneurs are challenged to create an environment that supports their new policies (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006:215). Suddaby and Greenwood (2005:35) also posits that, when the legitimacy of actions of individual actors is assessed and material practices deemed appropriate or not, institutional change occurs.
Structural overlap; mergers and acquisitions or a replacement of workers or officials, may trigger change in institutional logics guiding an institutional order. This occurs when
19
individual roles and organizational structures of distinct origin are forced into an institution. Actors with different cultures are infused into the association causing a contradiction of logics and thus creating opportunities for new entrepreneurial actors and institutional change. When this occurs, new values, ways of practices, innovations and incoming actors may gain increasing legitimacy in a field (Thornton et. al, 2008:116, Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006:215).
Finally, events that cannot be controlled may also cause a change in the institutional structure. It causes a havoc, destruction of practices and reinterpretation of the meanings of realities. Examples of such events are given as natural disasters, wars or an economic crisis. Such sequencing generates new logics that disturbs the dominance of existing logic (Thornton et. al, 2008:116, Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006:215). In the following logic compatibility and centrality are examined.
1.1.4.3 Logic compatibility and centrality
O
ften times, a multiplicity of competing logics in institutional fields may also propel institutional change (Misangyi et. al, 2008: 757). The
actors of a particular institutional order can “shape and change institutional logics” by manipulating available resources made to them. They use these resources to justify their actions and brings it to realization (Rao, Morrill, & Zaid, 2000: 241).
The impacts of multiple logics on an organization have been viewed differently by many scholars. Research offers divergent conclusions about the implications of multiple logics within an organization. While some scholars posit that, the emergence of multiple logics in an organization may spark some confusion and conflicts, others are of the view that multiple logics enable coexistence or logic blending. Some others have also mentioned that, multiple logics poses a threat to organizational performance and eventually leads to a collapse of the organization. In contrast to this argument some have claimed that, logic plurality promotes continuity and sustainability in organizational activities (Besharov &
Smith, 2014:364). Meyer and Rowan (1977) emphasized how plurality in the institutional environment often leads to incompatible internal organizational arrangements.
At the field level, the number of established professional institutions within an institutional field and the relationships between them has a strong influence on the degree of logic compatibility. The competition for power and status like we mentioned earlier,
20
influences the compatibility or incompatibility of multiple logics in the field level. When the competition for legitimacy amongst the various professional groups is high and every group seeks to gain control by coming up with their own distinct logics, then we expect a decrease in compatibility and co- existence of the differing logics in the field. On the other hand, when there is just one professional group active and not competing with any other dominant logic then there is higher compatibility. For instance, in the twentieth century, there was a shift in the US health care field from prevailing logic of professional groups including nurses and pharmacists to the logic of the medical profession which took dominance in the field leading to an increase in compatibility. In contrast, a weaker logic compatibility was seen in the field of business in the mid twentieth century. Most professional groups in the field competed for dominance and legitimacy and thus each profession had its own distinct logic guiding its activities. These varying logics in the business field led to a weaker compatibility in logics (Besharov & Smith, 2014:368).
The centrality of logics focuses on the extent to which more than one logic is distinct to an institutional order or organizational field (Besharov & Smith, 2014:369). Research reveals that, polycentrism of logics assumes a many-centeredness which necessitates the absence of a single center(Davies, 1999:97). It emphasizes the legitimacy attained in the institutionalization of the different multiple logics that emerges in an organizational field.
When multiple logics are embedded in the core organizational features with each carrying a distinct logic with a distinct legitimacy, centrality assumes a higher degree. In an institutional environment where activities are guided by a single and dominant logic with other logics in peripheral activities not directly linked to the institutional structure or practices in the organization, then centrality becomes low. To respond to multiple demands in organizations with multiple areas of expertise that involves a series of activities like in the case of the health sector, and multidisciplinary professional firms, distinct logics in appropriateness to the area of expertise must be employed ( Besharov &
Smith, 2014:369). In this case, there will be a higher centrality of logics.
The intensity of logic centrality can also be determined by an organization’s dependence on resources of the field actors. Organizations passively accept the demands of the actors that provide them with resources even if they are not in support of that logic. However, in the absence of dependency, organizations can defend the prevailing status quo since they are independent and relying on their own resources (Besharov & Smith, 2014:370).
The status quo is maintained by those actors empowered by an existing institutional logic
21
made unchangeable due to the resources that they possess. Emerging logics not yet made legitimate are subjected to public assessment and the outcome that comes after awaits evaluation. The status quo thus remains untouchable when there are available resources that can ensure its sustainability and rejecting any emerging and new institutional logics (Misangyi et. al, 2008: 757)
.
In short, where there is dependency, the tendency to include practices that conform to the logic of a non-dominant field actor is very low thus decreases centrality. On the other hand, when an organization relies on its own available resources, it might come up with its own distinct logics resulting in the plurality and centrality of logics.To give a better understanding of the interactions between the elements (institutional logics, social actors and resources) of institutional change an illustration is depicted below.
Figure 1: Institutional Change: The interplay between institutional logics, social identities and Resources
Source: Misangyi et. at (2008: 756)
Figure 1 illustrates the interactive processes that exist among institutional logics, the actors and the available resources which consequently bring about institutional change.
The figure shows that in any institutional field, the actions of individual actor is influenced by the relationship between the institutional logics and the resources available (shown by the bidirectional arrows in figure one above).
22
It demonstrates the interactions in an institutional field and the influence of available resources on the actions and behaviors of social agents. While institutional logics are not reproduced automatically it is important for us to understand that, institutional logics is the byproduct of social interactions thus involves human knowledge activity which stands the chance of triggering institutional change.
Also in figure 1 depicts how actions of individuals within any particular institutional field are guided by the recurring interaction between institutional logics and resources. It illustrates how available resources can either bring about a change in the status-quo or maintain it. In either ways this is directed by the social actors who serve as the leading drivers of change. Both actors defending the status quo (on the left of the diagram) and those promoting institutional change (on the right) to bring about a new logic are equally influenced by the availability of resources as shown in figure one above. Although institutionalization can be unintentional, it also can be the intentional product of actors within an institutional field. The process of institutionalization can basically be political that reflects the power of interested groups who mobilize practices that they deem desirable ((Misangyi et. al, 2008: 756-757). These social actors seek to achieve their imperial interests by creating and modifying the institutional logic within their domains.
Some of these powerful bodies including the World Bank and its affiliates are discussed later in chapter 2.
23
CHAPTER 2: COLONIALISM AS AN INSTITUTIONAL LOGIC
2.1 Introduction
This section traces the beginning of colonialism in Africa and how it relates to industrial growth and development which has a direct implication on organizational growth in Ghana and how that can be contextualized in institutional logics.
The arrival of the Europeans in the 1880 in Africa activated a process of colonialism which saw an end in the 1960’s as this period marks an end to their independence.
However, the pre-colonial structure of political, economic, social and management of organizations in the African society was tempered and altered by the activities of colonialism. In the African continent, Ghana was not an exception and had its share of colonial impact on its institutions. Before fragmentation of Africa by the European countries, many if not all African economies were doing well in all areas, specifically that of trade (Michalopoulos & Papaioannou, 2013:113-152).
Exploitation of both human and economic resources of the area captured was the aim of colonialism. European powers achieved this by encouraging a commodity- based trading system, a cash crop agriculture system, and establishing a link of the total economic output of a region to the demands of colonial masters in their citizenry. Their actions caused a hindrance to the development of the Africa. Before colonization, political centralization across Africa was very poor. There were heterogeneous ethnics groups with no central systems. There was however some states with centralized administration and hierarchical organization. The Shongai Empire in Western Africa, and the Luba kingdom in Central Africa. States without political organization beyond the chieftaincy include that of the Nuer in Sudan or the Konkomba in Ghana and Togo. These societies were organized in large chiefdoms but with loose alliances, such as the Ewe in Ghana.
Nonetheless, they were known to have conflict resolution mechanisms and a form of centralized decision-making process (Michalopoulos & Papaioannou, 2013:113-152).
The main idea behind colonization was the desire to claim foreign territories. This was done with an intention of gaining both economic and political control of the regions that they colonized. In other words, the objective of colonialism was not only for economic reasons, but also to win control and rule the entire nation. According to Marxist assumptions, the accumulation of raw material and resources, cheap labor and a larger market to trade goods was required for the expansion of the European industrial
24
economies. In addition, the extraction of surpluses from foreign lands was a requisite for building an empire, gaining power and hegemony in the international system. There was therefore a struggle for prestige and access to resources as the competition for European powers increased in the last years of the 1900’s.
Economically, they were not aimed at improving and strengthening the economy of their colonies but for their own selfish interests. Colonial powers placed restrictions on trade that could benefit the colonizing nation. These restrictions served as a barrier to trade and posed problems to the colonies (Settles, 1996:8-9). In the northern part of Ghana, large production of cotton, groundnuts and rice was discouraged by the colonial administration thus, providing no markets for producers and engaging the abled men into hard labor especially in mines. Industries such as the cocoa and palm oil were endorsed due to their lucrative nature. Trade in cattle by northerners across the neighboring countries was also stopped. This crippled the rise of commercial activity in cattle production in the region.
Entrepreneurs in this business were not motivated to continue which led to its failure.
(Plange, 1979:9)
Crops like peanuts or cocoa which were meant for exportation developed rapidly since the end of the 1900’s. To ensure the easy transportation of the crops to the coastal regions and ports, infrastructures were built. These goods were regarded luxuries to the European market. Europeans realizing this, established more colonies in Africa and took control over the production of these commodities. "Prices for palm oil and kernels - the great staples that developed at mid - century actually fell in the last three decades." European colonizing powers were bent on controlling Africa and therefore power was taken from the local rulers. The economic goals of colonialism were to provide great economic benefit to the colonizing power at the lower prices (Settles, 1996:7).
Power was therefore taken from traditional rulers and transferred to the colonial officials under the guise of colonial development. Africans were involuntarily made to accept the colonial system following the restrictions that were placed on trade. This made Africans to totally depend on Europeans economically. A predetermined market set by the colonial masters’ regulated activities and decisions as to which crops to produce were influenced by them (Settles, 1996:8-9).
Another major reason for colonization was the amassing of wealth, power and superiority by the Europeans. Africans helped define national greatness of colonial powers. From the
